Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project - JCAFC
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
3 -
download
0
Transcript of Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project - JCAFC
0
February 2016
Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
Baseline Assessment Report of Islands District
Table of Content
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. i
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Overview and Trend of Hong Kong’s Ageing Population ................................ 3
1.2 Hong Kong’s Responses to Population Ageing .................................................. 4
1.3 History and Concepts of Active Ageing in Age-friendly City: Health,
Participation and Security .............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project .............................................................. 6
2 Age-friendly City in Islands District .............................................................................. 7
2.1 Background and Characteristics of Islands District ......................................... 7
2.1.1 History and Development ........................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Characteristics of Islands District .......................................................... 8
2.2 Research Methods for Baseline Assessment .................................................... 13
2.2.1 Questionnaire Survey ............................................................................ 13
2.2.2 Focus Group Study ................................................................................ 16
2.2.3 Field Observation ................................................................................... 17
2.3 Time Frame ........................................................................................................ 21
2.4 Analysis and Findings of the 8 AFC Domains ................................................. 22
2.4.1 Personal Profiles of the Respondents ................................................... 22
2.4.2 Demographic Differences ...................................................................... 22
2.4.3 The 8 AFC Domains: Descriptive Analysis .......................................... 24
2.4.4 Appreciation from Islands Residents ................................................... 30
2.4.5 Discussions and Suggestions ................................................................. 31
2.5 Limitations .......................................................................................................... 40
3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 41
4. Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... 42
5. References ....................................................................................................................... 45
6. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Results from Islands District ......................................... 49
Appendix 2: Sample Profile for Islands District: Data Tables ................................... 53
Copyright reserved – reproduction by permission only
Please accept our apology for any incorrect information or omissions.
i
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Summary of elderly policies and services in Hong Kong (Tsuen Wan District
Council et al., 2014; Social Welfare Department, 2015e)
Table 2.1 Distribution of participants
Table 2.2 Number of participants and nature of each focus group
Table 2.3 Details of 2-day training workshop for Tai O ambassadors
Table 2.4 Details of 2-day training workshop for Tung Chung ambassadors
Table 2.5 Definition of four age groups
Table 2.6 Mean score among four age groups on eight Age-friendly City domains
Table 2.7 Mean score of perceived age-friendliness on eight domains
Table 2.8 Comparison among new town residents and indigenous inhabitants on item
53 by One-Way ANOVA statistical test
Table 2.9 Discussions and suggestions on “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings”
Table 2.10 Discussions and suggestions on “Transportation”
Table 2.11 Discussions and suggestions on “Housing”
Table 2.12 Discussions and suggestions on “Community Support and Health Services”
Table 2.13 Discussions and suggestions on “Communication and Information”
Table 2.14 Discussions and suggestions on “Social Participation”
Table 2.15 Discussions and suggestions on “Respect and Social Inclusion”
Table 2.16 Discussions and suggestions on “Civic Participation and Employment”
Table 4.1 Report authors and contributors from Lingnan University
Table 4.2 Supporting organizations
Table 4.3 Project helpers
Table 4.4 Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors – Tai O team
Table 4.5 Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors – Tung Chung team
Table 6.1 Mean score of perceived age-friendliness on eight domains
Table 6.2 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Outdoor Spaces and
Buildings”
Table 6.3 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Transportation”
Table 6.4 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Housing”
Table 6.5 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Social Participation”
Table 6.6 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Respect and Social
Inclusion”
Table 6.7 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Civic Participation and
Employment”
Table 6.8 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Communication and
Information”
ii
Table 6.9 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Community Support and
Health Services”
Table 6.10 Distribution of participants by gender
Table 6.11 Distribution of participants by age group
Table 6.12 Distribution of participants by residential area
Table 6.13 Distribution of participants by education level
Table 6.14 Distribution of participants by marital status
Table 6.15 Distribution of participants by living arrangement
Table 6.16 Distribution of participants by housing
Table 6.17 Distribution of participants by monthly income
Table 6.18 Distribution of participants by fulfilment of daily expenditure
Table 6.19 Distribution of participants by self-ranked health status
Table 6.20 Distribution of participants by participation in elderly centres
Table 6.21 Distribution of participants by experience of taking care of older people
Table 6.22 Distribution of participants by employment status
Table 6.23 Distribution of participants by chronic diseases
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Tourist spot – Tai O
Figure 2.2 Outdoor spaces in Tai O
Figure 2.3 The most common public transport in Tung Chung
Figure 2.4 Bicycle parking spaces in Tai O
Figure 2.5 Residential buildings in Tung Chung
Figure 2.6 Tung Chung public library
Figure 2.7 Notice board of Islands District Office
Figure 2.8 Brief introduction of age-friendly city to the interviewees before interviews/
doing the questionnaires
Figure 2.9 Field observation in Tai O
Figure 2.10 Ambassador training in Tung Chung
Figure 2.11 Public education session in Tai O
Figure 2.12 Comparison of perceived age-friendliness on each of the eight domains and
the overall mean (overall satisfaction)
Page 1
Executive Summary
Purpose
The aim of this baseline assessment was to evaluate the current state of age-friendliness and
make a list of recommendations for the future development of Islands District (the District)
through adopting a bottom up and district-based approach. The baseline assessment provided
opportunities for the elderly to voice their opinions and served as an appropriate strategy to
meet their needs. Additionally, stakeholders from diverse groups can work together to build
and maintain an age-friendly community.
Method
This research used a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research
methods. In the research, four target groups (including resident aged 60 or above, resident aged
16-59, carer and service provider) were defined. Interview questions were based on the eight
age-friendly city domains, recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and were
utilised in both the questionnaire and focus group surveys. A total of 500 respondents were
successfully interviewed in the questionnaire survey, which reviewed the views of the general
public on the age-friendly condition in the district. After implementing the questionnaire survey,
five focus group interviews were arranged to collect detailed information pertaining to the eight
domains. Elderly residents were invited as “Age-friendly City Ambassadors” to conduct field
observations in the District and investigate the community in terms of its age-friendliness.
Key findings
The mean of questionnaire survey in overall satisfaction for all eight Age-friendly City (AFC)
domains in the District was 3.85 (±0.73), slightly below the “agree” reference of 4 on a Likert
scale of 6. Among the eight AFC domains, the highest and lowest AFC domain were “Social
Participation” (4.14±0.88) and “Housing” (3.46±1.11), respectively. In terms of Social
Participation, the close neighbourhood/ clan relationship in the District is important to facilitate
social participation among residents. Also, findings provided an understanding on why there
was a high differentiation in ratings among different residential types, especially in the Housing
domain. In addition, high standard deviations, generally more than 1 in each item, show the
uniqueness among communities in the District. This means that attention needs to be placed on
the actual circumstances of each location when considering the age-friendliness in the District.
Page 2
Recommendations
After analysing the data gathered from the surveys, discussions were formed, based on
interviewees and ambassadors’ living experiences. Recommendations were also made for
creating a better liveable and age-friendly community within the District, according to the eight
AFC domains. These recommendations were used to draft a future action plan.
Conclusion
In response to an increasing ageing population and its future implications, all stakeholders in
the community were recommended to work out a variety of strategies and policies targeted to
address the needs of aged people and prepare for an age-friendly and healthy community.
Page 3
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview and Trend of Hong Kong’s Ageing Population
Hong Kong is no exception when it comes to an increasingly ageing population. As this global
trend continues, Hong Kong must face the challenges that arise from an ageing population.
Between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of persons aged 65 or above in Hong Kong steadily
increased from 12.1% to 14.7% while persons under the aged of 15 decreased from 14.8% to
11.1% (Census and Statistics Department, 2015a: 4). Hong Kong has faced a rapid population
ageing in recent years and in future, the ageing trend is expected to continue. As a result of the
further decline in mortality rates and a rise in life expectancy, which also happens to coincide
with a low birth rate, the proportion of people aged 65 or above is projected to double and
comprise of 33% of the city’s entire population in 2064 (Census and Statistics Department,
2015b: 6). At the same time, the proportion of employed workers in Hong Kong is expected to
decrease. Hence, the elderly dependency ratio of Hong Kong, which is the population aged 65
or above per 1,000 persons aged between 15 and 64, is projected to rise from 198 in the mid-
2014 to 567 in the mid-2064 (Census and Statistics Department, 2015b: 6). This indicates that
the ageing population in Hong Kong will continue to grow and our society must be prepared
to deal with this situation.
Page 4
1.2 Hong Kong’s Responses to Population Ageing
In response to an increasingly ageing population and its future implications, the Hong Kong
Government prepared and implemented a variety of strategies and policies targeted to address
elderly issues. Table 1.1 shows a brief summary of elderly policies and services implemented
in Hong Kong between 1977-2015:
1977-1990 1991-2000 2001-2006 2007-2015
Green Paper
Elderly Services
5-year Plan on
Community Care
Appoint a
working group to
understand the
needs of the
elderly
Introduce a
Senior Citizen
Card Scheme
Establish an
Elderly
Commission
Introduce WHO
Healthy Cities
Implement
Standardised Care
Need Assessment
Mechanism for
Elderly Services
Propose “quality
of life” and long
term care
Form Elder
Academies to
encourage life-
long learning and
active ageing
Continue to
ensure that the
“Opportunities for
the Elderly
Project” regularly
fosters a sense of
worthiness among
the elderly
continuously
Launch Public
Transport Fare
Concession
Scheme for the
Elderly and
Eligible Persons
with Disabilities
Offer Old Age
Living
Allowance
Initiate the Pilot
Scheme on
Community Care
Service Voucher
for the Elderly
Invite the Elderly
Commission to
develop an
Elderly Service
Programme Plan
Table 1.1 Summary of elderly policies and services in Hong Kong (Tsuen Wan District Council
et al., 2014; Social Welfare Department, 2015e)
Page 5
1.3 History and Concepts of Active Ageing in Age-friendly City: Health, Participation
and Security
Apart from Hong Kong, many countries are experiencing an ageing trend in their population.
In order to address the challenges of global ageing, the World Health Organisation (WHO)
launched “Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide” (the Guide) in 2008 after the development of
an active ageing framework. According to the “Active Ageing: A Policy Framework”, “Health”,
“Participation” and “Security” are the basic backbones of a strategic planning for active ageing
(World Health Organisation (WHO), 2002). Based on the paradigm of active ageing, age-
friendly city has further promoted the concept of active ageing through the optimisation of
opportunities for “Health”, “Participation” and “Security” in all aspects of life (WHO, 2007:
1). The relationship between active ageing and age-friendly city is emphasised. The
establishment of age-friendly city is essential to foster active ageing, while the concept of active
ageing is used to guide the development of an age-friendly city. Hence, citizens from all stages
of life can enhance their quality of life by establishing an age-friendly city.
The United Nations proposes that older persons should be given opportunities for participation
in the decision-making process; thus, the WHO conducted focus group research with older
persons, caregivers and service providers from 33 cities (WHO, 2007: 7). Through this research,
it is apparent that older persons are given the chance to directly express their opinions as well
as their first-hand experience. They are also able to actively participate in the process of policy
formulation. Through this bottom-up participatory approach, age-friendly features are
identified and the Guide helps to ensure that city planning accommodates residents of all ages.
Key indicators from the Guide provide local governments with a comprehensive and practical
tool to review the age-friendly situation as well as facilitate a timely policy response through a
bottom-up participatory approach.
Age-friendly city consists of eight entities that influence active ageing and deal with the city’s
structure, environment, services, and policies (WHO, 2007: 5-6). These eight entities include
“Outdoor Spaces and Buildings”, “Transportation”, “Housing”, “Social Participation”,
“Respect and Social Inclusion”, “Civic Participation and Employment”, “Communication and
Information” and “Community Support and Health Services” (WHO, 2007). The Guide reveals
that barrier-free environments can optimise mobility and foster independent living for people
of all ages (WHO, 2007: 6). Therefore, it not only utilises the three backbones of the Active
Ageing Policy Framework, but also emphasises the importance of a physical living
environment.
Page 6
1.4 Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project
The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (“The Trust”) has taken a proactive role in
tackling the challenges of ageing population, and stipulated building Hong Kong into an age-
friendly city as one of the overarching strategic themes in the coming three to five years.
The Trust has developed an Elderly Strategy which aims to help elderly people extend their
healthy and active years of life and enjoy more fulfilling lives.
There are four strategic priority areas under the strategy, including: (1) exercise, nutrition and
preventative health; (2) employment and volunteering; (3) intergenerational harmony; and (4)
mental wellness. Building Hong Kong into an age-friendly city spans across all strategic
priority areas of the Trust’s Elderly Strategy and provides a foundation for actions.
In order to capture the current state of age-friendliness in Hong Kong, the Trust partnered with
Hong Kong’s four gerontology research institutes – Jockey Club Institute of Ageing of The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong,
Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing Studies and Office of Service-Learning of Lingnan University,
and Institute of Active Ageing of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University to implement the
“Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project”. The first phase of baseline assessment was conducted
from July 2015 to February 2016 in eight districts, including Central and Western, Islands,
Kowloon City, Kwun Tong, Sha Tin, Tai Po, Tsuen Wan and Wan Chai.
The key objectives of the project are to:
- Build momentum in districts to develop an age-friendly community through an assessment
of their respective age-friendliness;
- Recommend a framework for districts to undertake continual improvement for the well-
being of our senior citizens; and
- Arouse public awareness and encourage community participation in building an age-
friendly city.
Page 7
2 Age-friendly City in Islands District
2.1 Background and Characteristics of Islands District
2.1.1 History and Development
Islands District (the District) is located on the south-western coast of Hong Kong, covering
177.57 km2 and constituting 16% of the city’s total land area (Survey and Mapping Office /
Lands Department, 2014). It is the largest district in Hong Kong among the 18 districts.
Currently, the country parks in Lantau Island cover an area of 10,200 hectares, making up about
70% of the total area in Lantau Island (Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department,
2015). The majority of residents in the District live in specific areas and outlying islands, such
as Tung Chung New Town, Cheung Chau, Lamma Island, Mui Wo, Tai O and Discovery Bay.
The 2014 mid-year population in the District was 147,400 and those aged 65 or above
accounted for 10.2% of the total population (Census and Statistics Department, 2015a: 19, 44).
In 2014, the median age of the population in the District was 39: a relatively low median age
compared to other districts located in Hong Kong (Census and Statistics Department, 2015a:
6). It is estimated that by 2023, 15.9% of the residents in the District will be aged 65 or over
(Planning Department, 2014: 78). Among the elder population residing in the District, 37.5%
of them were living alone or living with one older person (Social Welfare Department, 2015f).
Tung Chung New Town
Tung Chung New Town, known as North Lantau New Town, is the third generation of the New
Town Development Programme. Established in the 1990s, the programme was founded with a
mission to develop communities as supporting units for the Hong Kong International Airport.
The development project in Tung Chung was implemented in phases. Phase 1, 2 and 3A were
completed by 2014 (Civil Engineering and Development Department, 2014). As a result of the
residential and commercial development in Tung Chung New Town, a wide range of
community and infrastructure facilities have been put in place to strengthen the potential of the
new town being self-contained. Presently, there are approximately 80,000 persons residing in
Tung Chung New Town (Information Services Department, 2015). Further development
strategies for Tung Chung New Town are required with reference to the valuable opportunities
raised by the infrastructure projects nearby, such as Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Related
Hong Kong Projects (Information Services Department, 2015). Tung Chung New Town
Extension Study has been implemented by the Planning Department and the Civil Engineering
and Development Department since 2012. As the population is expected to continue to rise in
the future, areas within Tung Chung East and Tung Chung West will be further developed and
undergo a number of infrastructural changes in the upcoming years.
Page 8
Rural area in Lantau and outlying islands
Apart from the new town in the District,
residents, born and raised in the rural areas
of Lantau and outlying islands, have built a
strong neighbourhood bond and the sense
of belonging in the community. As its
location is far away from urban locations,
these areas have become self-contained
communities and developed basic
community facilities to support residents’
daily living experiences. Strong local
neighbourhood networks allow residents to
enrich their social participation and quality
of life. The proportion of elderly population is relatively high in these areas, as young people
generally reside in urban areas. Instead of traditional fishing villages, some rural areas in the
District are popular tourist destinations, such as Tai O (Figure 2.1). In effect, these areas have
become a hub of economic development as well.
2.1.2 Characteristics of Islands District
Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
Recreation grounds, such as parks,
gardens, waterfront promenades and
outdoor seating areas, can be found in
the District, predominantly close to
residential areas, such as Tai O (Figure
2.2). The Transport and Housing
Bureau also plans to create barrier-free
access facilities in one central location
within the District (Highways
Department, 2015). Also, sixty-three
public toilets have been implemented
in the District for public use, most of which are located in the villages and in close proximity
to tourist destinations (Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, 2014).
Figure 2.1 Tourist spot – Tai O
Figure 2.2 Outdoor spaces in Tai O
Page 9
Transportation
Public transport in Tung Chung
provides a wide range of services,
including MTR, bus and taxi, in order
to access locations within Lantau and
neighbouring districts. Bus is the
common form of public transport
linking Tung Chung to the sub-
community areas in Lantau (Figure
2.3). Also, Ngong Ping Cable Car,
which has been in operation since
2006, links Tung Chung and Ngong
Ping. The terminal in Tung Chung is
also nearby to the Tung Chung MTR station. According to the “Railway Development Strategy
2014”, Tung Chung West MTR terminus station was expected to be further developed in order
to respond to the increased transportation demands that have resulted from the extension of
Tung Chung New Town (Transport and Housing Bureau, 2014). Apart from public transport,
Tung Chung Cycling track was built along Tung Chung Road, Tung Chung Waterfront Road
and Yu Tung Road and approximately 1,700 bicycle parking spaces were installed for public
use (Transport Department, 2015).
Among the outlying islands, ferry is
the only means of transport to travel
between islands (such as Cheung
Chau, Lamma Islands and Peng Chau)
and locations in other districts within
Hong Kong. As a result of the road
design and landscapes within specific
islands, bicycle is commonly used in
areas such as Lamma Islands, Cheung
Chau, Mui Wo, Tai O (Figure 2.4) and
Peng Chau. In these areas, bicycle
parking spaces are also provided to the
public.
Housing
In 2014, 50,300 domestic households were in the District, which comprised of 2.1% of the total
domestic households in Hong Kong (Census and Statistics Department, 2015a: 22). Eight
Figure 2.3 The most common public transport in Tung
Chung
Figure 2.4 Bicycle parking spaces in Tai O
Page 10
public rental housing estates exist in the District, three of which are located on Tung Chung
(Figure 2.5), while the rest are situated in Mui Wo, Tai O, Cheung Chau and Peng Chau. The
number of domestic households residing in public rental housing is 15,683 and the relative
authorized population is 52,671 (Census and Statistics Department, 2015b: 217). In order to
provide residents with quality housing, public estates in the District have received the
certification of ISO14001: an environmental management system to enhance the quality of
management and create a healthy and comfortable living environment for residents (Hong
Kong Housing Authority, 2015). In addition to public rental housing, other types of housing in
the District include private housing, village houses and pang uk (棚屋). Furthermore, the Social
Welfare Department has appointed the NAAC Tung Chung Integrated Services Centre to
follow up the application of the Home Environment Improvement Scheme for the Elderly
(Social Welfare Department, 2008).
Social Participation
In order to fulfil the needs of residents,
community facilities for events and
activities are well-established in the
District, such as community halls, parks,
libraries (Figure 2.6) and sports centres.
Among elderly services, five
government-funded elderly centres -
two of which can be found in Tung
Chung and the rest are located on
Cheung Chau, Peng Chau and Mui Wo,
Figure 2.5 Residential buildings in Tung Chung
Figure 2.6 Tung Chung public library
Page 11
respectively (Social Welfare Department, 2015d). Although there is no elderly centre in Lamma
Island, Lamma Island (South) Rural Committee and Lamma Island (North) Rural Committee
regularly organise social and recreational activities for the elderly. Also, there are four elder
academies in the District (Elder Academy, 2012).
Respect and Social Inclusion
Governmental departments and social centres for the elderly generally collaborate to hold
intergenerational activities that promote the bond between the young and old generations in the
community. For example, from 2013-2014, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department
cooperated with Chung Ying Theatre Company, the Neighbourhood Advice-Action Council
and the Hong Kong Heritage Conservation Foundation Limited to organize the “Community
Oral History Theatre Project – Islands District (Tai O)” in Tai O (Audience Building Office –
Leisure and Cultural Services Department, 2015). Among the “Opportunities for the Elderly
Project” (OEP), there are five 1-year projects (2014-2015) and two 2-year projects (2014-2016)
launched in the District (Social Welfare Department, 2016a, 2016b). In order to promote a
sense of the elderly worthless to youth, the Social Welfare Department further implemented a
“School Promotion Project – Encouraging a Sense of Worthiness among the elders” without
applying for funding support from the OEP. In 2014-2015, one primary school, two secondary
schools, and one private secondary and primary school in the District participated in the project
(Social Welfare Department, 2016c).
Civic Participation and Employment
Islands District Council (DC) has organised a “Meet-the-Public Scheme” and assigned a duty
District Council Member, with the assistance of an executive officer from the District Council
Secretariat, to provide support, answer enquiries and complaints from the public. Additionally,
Tung Chung Job Centre, located in Yat Tung Shopping Centre, provides a wide range of free
employment services to job seekers of all ages.
Page 12
Communication and Information
There are three Home Affairs
Department Public Enquiry Service
Centres in Islands District (Figure 2.7),
which are located in Cheung Chau, Mui
Wo and Tung Chung. These Centres
provide various types of information
for residents about available
governmental services. Staff of the
Centres are expected to respond to
residents’ questions. Also, government
forms as well as pamphlets are
distributed through the Centres so that
the public can access to a wide range of information. Five public libraries and various social
welfare service units in the District provide a number of desktop computers with free internet
access. 18 GovWiFi hotspots provide free internet access, most of which can be found in public
libraries, sports centres and community halls (GovHK, 2015).
Community Support and Health Services
Community-based primary care services are provided, such as public hospital services, general
out-patient services, family health services, dental services and elderly health services. The
majority of clinics and health centres are located in Tung Chung and the rest are situated in
Cheung Chau, Tai O, Mui Wo and Peng Chau. North Lantau Hospital, which is a public hospital
in Tung Chung, has been in operation since 2013 and will offer more services in the near future.
For emergency incidents, a 24-hour air ambulance is provided by the Government Flying
Service. Its service team is expected to arrive at locations in Island Zone within 20 minutes
(Government Flying Service, 2015).
Apart from healthcare services, various rehabilitation and long-term care services for elderly
are available in the District. Five elderly homes offer subsidized living spaces for older persons
(Social Welfare Department, 2015a). One residential care home and six private homes offer
non-subsidised places for the elderly. Currently, no private homes for the elderly have joined
“Enhanced Bought Place Scheme” (Social Welfare Department, 2015a). A majority of the
residential care services for the elderly are located in Tung Chung, Cheung Chau, Tai O and
Mui Wo (Social Welfare Department, 2015b, 2015c).
Figure 2.7 Notice board of Islands District Office
Page 13
2.2 Research Methods for Baseline Assessment
This research adopted a mixed methods approach, which included a questionnaire survey, focus
group interviews and field trips, to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
2.2.1 Questionnaire Survey
In order to capture the age-friendliness of each district, a questionnaire survey was conducted
to review the general public views of the community in terms of its age-friendly condition and
perception of the age-friendliness in the District.
The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts. In the first part, fifty-three questions were designed,
based on the framework of Age-friendly City (WHO, 2007). The six-point scale scores used
are as follows: “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “slightly disagree” (3), “slightly agree”
(4), “agree” (5) and “strongly agree” (6). The second part consisted of a brief Sense of
Community Scale. The third part included information about interviewees’ socio-
demographics, self-rated health, experience of caring the elderly, and frequency of using
services provided by elderly centres. Each questionnaire interview took approximately 20-40
minutes to complete.
To find matching interviewees, covering a general and comprehensible geographical area, we
demarcated the District into 8 main areas: Lantau, Yat Tung Estate, Tung Chung, Discovery
Bay, Peng Chau and Hei Ling Chau, Lamma and Po Toi, Cheung Chau and Tai O.
2.2.1.1 Target Population
500 interviewees from four target groups in the District were aimed to recruit in the
questionnaire survey.
i. 350 residents aged 60 or above
According to the WHO active ageing framework, the wellbeing and worthiness of older
persons should be emphasised in an age-friendly city (WHO, 2007: 4). To evaluate the
District in terms of its age-friendliness, 350 older residents were interviewed to gain an
understanding of their opinions on the age-friendly situation within their community.
Page 14
ii. 50 residents aged 16-59 from general public
An age-friendly society not only enables the elderly to enhance their quality of life and
encourages them to be active participants in the community, but it also creates a better
environment for residents of all ages. Therefore, the general public aged 59 or below was
also interviewed to provide a more comprehensive view of the age-friendliness within
the District.
iii. 50 elderly carers
Carers, who take care of the elderly and understand elderly’s situation and needs, were
interviewed to provide more information about elderly’s daily experience living in the
District. Also, they were able to express opinions on elderly policies and carer support
services and offer suggestions for future improvement.
iv. 50 service providers from elderly services
Service providers from the public, voluntary and commercial sectors provide a wide
range of community services to the elderly in the District. As a result, these individuals
were interviewed to better understand their opinions on the service needs of the elderly.
Even more, service providers were able to comment on government policies and share
their experiences while working with and providing services for the elderly.
2.2.1.2 Sampling and sample size
Convenience sampling methods were used. Nine local agencies1, including social service units,
churches and local companies in the District, were invited to give referrals of eligible persons
to be interviewees. Personal interviews and self-administered methods were adopted in the data
collection. Trained helpers and centre staff provided face to face interviews to encourage the
responses of participants who were illiterate. Interviewees who were literate finished the
questionnaire on their own, but with assistance from helpers and agency staff if needed.
1 Including Cheung Chau Chaozhou Association (長洲潮州會館), Everlasting Light Mission (基督教永光會堂),
Hai Kee Stone Fty (奚記石廠), Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Tung Chung Integrated Services, NAAC Tung
Chung Integrated Service, OIWA (Lamma Island), POH Chan Shi Sau Memorial Social Service Centre, Tung
Chung Safe and Healthy City Community Library Resource Centre and YWCA Tai O Community Work Office
Page 15
A total of 501 questionnaires were collected of which 500 were successful, representing a
response rate of 99.8% (Table 2.1).
Target Groups No. of participants
Successful Unsuccessful
Resident aged 60 or above 350 1
Resident aged 16-59 50 0
Carer 50 0
Service provider 50 0
Total 500 1
Table 2.1 Distribution of participants2
2 Some participants can be classified into 2 or 3 target groups.
Figure 2.8 Brief introduction of age-friendly city to the interviewees
before interviews/ doing the questionnaires
Page 16
2.2.2 Focus Group Study
Detailed information was collected through focus group studies after the implementation of the
questionnaire survey. In addition to a set of open-ended questions, interview questions covered
the eight domains from the framework of the WHO Age-friendly City. The moderator first
introduced the concept of age-friendly city to provide a basic understanding to interviewees
and stimulate responses from participants. Then, participants were asked to share their
experiences and feelings of living in their communities.
Convenience sampling methods were adopted. Eligible persons who had completed the
questionnaire survey before were invited to the focus groups, as they were already familiar
with the age-friendly city concept. A brief introduction to the study and the age-friendly city
concept was delivered to these groups before discussion began.
A total of five focus groups were performed, consisting of two groups of Resident aged 60 or
above, one group of Resident aged 16-59, one group of Carer and one group of Service provider
(Table 2.2). Each focus group comprised of six to eleven participants. 90-120 minutes was
given for each focus group to respond to interview questions and a 10-15 minute break was
given during that time. Studies were conducted between October and December 2015. The
entirety of the focus group interviews was tape-recorded and a transcribed transcript was
created in order to report the age-friendliness of the district.
Group Date Nature (Code) No. of participants
1 2015/10/30 Resident aged 60 or above (60+ Tung Chung) 8
2 2015/11/17 Carer (Carer) 8
3 2015/11/24 Service provider (Service Provider) 7
4 2015/11/27 Resident aged 16-59 (16-59 Resident) 6
5 2015/12/11 Resident aged 60 or above (60+ Islands) 11
Table 2.2 Number of participants and nature of each focus group
Page 17
2.2.3 Field Observation
In the meantime, field trips were
organised as a form of baseline
assessment to collect data. The empirical
observation of material conditions in the
field trip allowed for the collection of
evidence and a more comprehensive
picture of what age-friendliness looks
like in the District (Figure 2.9). The field
trips were embedded as one element in a
two-day training workshop for two
ambassador groups (Figure 2.10). The
first day of the training workshop was
intended to help ambassadors familiarise
themselves with the major features of
age-friendly city through on-site
observation and training. In day two,
field observations were conducted to
evaluate their community in terms of its
age-friendliness. Table 2.3 and Table 2.4
show the details of the two-day training
workshop: for Tai O and Tung Chung
ambassadors, respectively. After the field
trips, data and comments were collected
from participants, as they discussed and
determined which improvements were
needed.
Figure 2.9 Field observation in Tai O
Figure 2.10 Ambassador training in Tung Chung
Page 18
Table 2.3 Details of 2-day training workshop for Tai O ambassadors
Tai O Ambassador Group
Details Day One Day Two
Date 16th December 2015 19th December 2015
Venue Lingnan University Tai O
Objectives
1. To collect the field observation data by using a bottom up approach
2. To empower the elderly and further participation in the community
3. To engage in public education
4. To enhance intergenerational harmony
Number of participants
12 Islands older residents 9 Islands older residents
Targets 1. Participants can learn the concept of Age-friendly city through:
- Lectures and discussion about Age-friendly City
- Practical walk in Lingnan University with the guidance of trained helpers to observe the age-friendliness facilities in the campus.
- Art work design – What my ideal Age-friendly Tai O is?
2. Participants can become the ambassadors after joining the workshop.
1. Participants and helpers carry out field observation in routes which included:
- Places that are commonly visited by Tai O elderly.
Route 1. Nam Chung, Tai O Promenade, Bus terminus (Transportation, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Respect and Social Inclusion)
2. Shek Tsai Po Street, Tai O Jockey Club General Out-patient Clinic, Tai O Rural Committee (Community Support and Health Services, Social Participation, Communication and Information)
3. Lung Tin Estate, Tai O Wing On Street (Housing, Civic Participation)
4. Kat Hing Street and Kat Hing Back Street (Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Communication and Information, Social Participation)
Page 19
Tung Chung Ambassador Group
Details Day One Day Two
Date 7th January 2016 14th January 2016
Venue Lingnan University Tung Chung
Objectives
1. To collect field observation data by using a bottom up approach
2. To empower the elderly and further participation in the community
3. To engage in public education
4. To enhance intergenerational harmony
Number of participants
41 Islands older residents 33 Islands older residents
Targets 1. Participants can learn the concept of Age-friendly city through:
- Lectures and discussion about Age-friendly City
- Practical walk in Lingnan University with the guidance of trained helpers to observe the age-friendliness facilities in the campus.
- Art work design – What my ideal Age-friendly Tung Chung is?
2. Participants can become the ambassadors after joining the workshop.
1. Participants and helpers carry out field observation in routes which included:
- Places that are commonly visited by Tung Chung elderly.
Route 1. Tung Chung Crescent and Fu Tung Village (Housing, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Civil Participation)
2. Yut Tung Village and Ma Wan Chung Village and Tung Chung Catholic School (Housing, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Respect and Social Inclusion)
3. Tung Chung Maternal & Child Health Centre, Fu Tung Shopping Centre and wet market (Community Support and Health Services, Social Participation)
4. Man Tung Road Park, Tung Chung Municipal Service Building, Tung Chung Public Library, Tung Chung Man Tung Road Sports Centre (Social Participation, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Communication and Information)
5. Tung Chung MTR station, Tung Chung Bus terminus, Tung Chung Temporary Bus Terminus, Tung Chung Development ferry pier (Transportation, Communication and Information, Respect and Social Inclusion)
Table 2.4 Details of 2-day training workshop for Tung Chung ambassadors
Page 20
After the observations, data was
consolidated and participants discussed the
findings. Participants were asked to
determine specific improvements, and rank
which improvements were most needed.
Public education sessions were also
designed to show the current state of age-
friendliness in the community. Public
education sessions in Tai O were held on 27
and 30 January 2016 (Figure 2.11), while a
session in Tung Chung was organised on 16
February 2016.
Figure 2.11 Public education session in Tai O
Page 21
2.3 Time Frame
Research was conducted from September 2015 to February 2016, including the questionnaire
survey interview, focus groups interviews and field observation.
Page 22
2.4 Analysis and Findings of the 8 AFC Domains
2.4.1 Personal Profiles of the Respondents
A total of 500 respondents were interviewed. 75.8% of them were female and 24.2% were male.
The mean age was 66.4 with a standard deviation of ± 16.7 and 63.2% of them were 65 years
old or above. 57.6% of them had either no formal schooling or attended only primary education.
A majority of respondents resided in Yat Tung (26.4%) and Cheung Chau (24.4%).
61.8% of the respondents were married. A large number of them were not living alone,
constituting 80.0% of the respondents. Half of the respondents were living in public housing,
including public rental housing (37.8%) and subsidized sale flats (12.2%). Additionally, 40.0%
of them were residing in their own private permanent housing.
80.6% of the respondents were unemployment. 69.4% of them had a monthly income of less
than HKD 5,999. More than half also believed that they had merely enough money to afford
the costs of living (59.8%).
About half of the respondents had chronic diseases (50.2%). 50.6% of them regarded their
health status as average (50.6%). Moreover, 56.0% of them claimed they had no experiences
taking care of the elderly and 46.4% of them had used the services provided by elderly centres
over the last three months.
2.4.2 Demographic Differences
2.4.2.1 Four Age Groups
As people at different ages have specific experiences, needs and conditions, four age groups
were divided according to their common status. Table 2.5 shows the details of definition
towards four age groups. As a result of our purposive sampling, participants were recruited at
elderly centres. All recruited participants were free from bed-rest and considered quite active
in terms of their social participation.
Age Status
16-49 working or in school
50-64 either way up and down the retirement norm
65-79 young-olds, generally active and can make social participation freely
80+ old-olds
Table 2.5 Definition of four age groups
Page 23
Age Group
Outdoor
Spaces
and
Buildings
Transport
ation Housing
Social
Participation
Respect
and Social
Inclusion
Civic
Participati
on and
Employme
nt
Communica
tion and
Information
Community
Support and
Health
Services
Mean
score of
8
domains
16-49 Mean 3.63 3.40 3.11 4.04 4.00 3.46 3.77 3.41 3.60
N 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
SD 0.78 0.80 1.01 0.95 0.86 0.97 0.70 0.84 0.68
50-64 Mean 3.60 3.56 3.22 4.02 3.96 3.67 3.77 3.52 3.67
N 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
SD 0.99 0.94 1.09 0.92 0.85 1.05 0.87 0.99 0.82
65-79 Mean 3.92 4.10 3.67 4.30 4.16 3.97 4.18 3.86 4.02
N 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195
SD 0.86 0.83 1.15 0.84 0.89 0.95 0.81 0.92 0.71
80 or
above
Mean 3.89 4.13 3.58 4.04 3.98 3.74 4.01 3.76 3.89
N 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
SD 0.81 0.60 1.05 0.85 0.80 0.93 0.84 0.86 0.61
Total Mean 3.80 3.89 3.46 4.14 4.05 3.77 3.99 3.69 3.85
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
SD 0.88 0.85 1.11 0.88 0.86 0.99 0.83 0.93 0.73
Table 2.6 Mean score among four age groups on eight Age-friendly City domains
Among the age groups, residents aged 65-79 rated the highest overall mean which shows they
were most likely to be satisfied with their community based on eight Age-friendly City (AFC)
domains. Other age groups, including 16-49, 50-64 and 65-79, rated “Social Participation” as
the highest mean score among eight domains while residents aged 80 or above were most
satisfied with the “Transportation” domain. Besides, “Housing” domain had the lowest mean
score among eight domains. Table 2.6 shows the detail of comparison among different age
groups on eight Age-friendly City domains by mean score.
Page 24
2.4.2.2 Gender
There was no significant difference with Gender in respondents’ perceived satisfaction of the
8 AFC domains for the District.
2.4.3 The 8 AFC Domains: Descriptive Analysis
The Overall Mean Score among AFC Domains
Table 2.7 and Figure 2.12 show that the overall mean of perceived age-friendliness on eight
domains was 3.85 with a standard deviation of ±0.73, which corresponds to the questionnaire
items evaluating the readiness of a community to be regarded as “Age-friendly” in terms of the
eight AFC domains in the six-point scale score. The average mean of each domain was slightly
higher or lower than the overall means except for the “Housing” domain (3.46±1.11). The
highest and lowest AFC domain among the eight were “Social Participation” (4.14±0.88) and
“Housing”, respectively.
Table 2.7 Mean score of perceived age-friendliness on eight domains
AFC Domain Mean Standard Deviation
Outdoor Spaces and Buildings 3.80 0.88
Transportation 3.89 0.85
Housing 3.46 1.11
Social Participation 4.14 0.88
Respect and Social Inclusion 4.05 0.86
Civic Participation 3.77 0.99
Communication and Information 3.99 0.83
Community Support and Health Services 3.69 0.93
Overall Mean 3.85 0.73
Page 25
Figure 2.12 Comparison of perceived age-friendliness on each of the eight domains and the
overall mean (overall satisfaction)
Social Participation as the Highest Mean Score among 8 AFC Domains
Most respondents indicated a rating of 4 or higher for the domain of “Respect and Social
Inclusion” and “Social Participation”, with the latter having the highest rating. In details, high
rating of Item 26, “social activities are open for individual or group participants”
(4.51±1.10) and Item 27, “affordable and clear activity fees” (4.28±1.07), combined with the
comments from focus groups (16-59 Resident, 323, 325; Service Provider, 9; 60+ Tung Chung,
747), clearly showed that the needs of the elderly in the community were met.
In terms of “Social participation”, the close neighbourhood/ clan relationship in the District
is a key point. Like the comment of Carer A:
“ ….無人去好似我地咁退休人士出嚟有地方俾你玩,個啲人呢,個啲群體精神同埋無我
地東涌咁好,我地好…呢到啲人好好…大家齊心合力為咗一件事,可以…一齊做一樣野
嘅。” (There is no place like here (Tung Chung) where retired people will come out to play.
We have a good unity spirit that is stronger than most other places. We are good, the people
here are good, and we can do things hand in hand.) (127);
“…鄰舍關係呢,我覺得我哋呢度呢,得好好,真係好好架 ” (The neighbourhood
relationship, here, is good, really good.) (128)
Page 26
In the rural area, a close relationship among community members was formed, in some parts,
because of relatives living near one another in the community or individuals occupying the
same living area in which they were born (Service Provider, 7, 14, 26, 38). During the field
observation, residents were seen greeting each other and discussing community news while
walking on the street. The close neighbourhood relationship links residents together in both
formal and informal ways, and enables them to work together to create a communications
network, which helps elderly feel secure and inclusive in the community.
In order to build up this communications network, residents requested platforms and venues
for formal or informal gatherings in the community. Data gathered in the questionnaire (Item
30, 3.97±1.40) showed a low rating and the comments in the focus groups (60+ Tung Chung,
231; 60+ Islands, 403, 423, 500-507) revealed there was a huge demand for venues.
Last but not least, it is determined that it is hard to reach the male elders and elderly who
live in remote area and, therefore, decreases the likelihood that they would join activities.
Data supporting this claim was revealed in the low rating of item 31 (3.84±1.39), which
concerns the out-reaching service for isolated group, and focus group (Service Provider, 23, 38,
62).
Housing Domain as the Lowest Mean Score among 8 AFC Domains
The “Housing” domain was not the only domain with a low mean rating. However, it had the
lowest mean score among all the domains because it included two of the five lowest rated items
in the 53 item questionnaire. As a result, the overall mean of “Housing” domain significantly
dropped. Item 24 and Item 25 which concern interior modifications (3.36±1.43) and transfer
upon frail (3.28±1.40) respectively, and the comments in the focus groups (60+ Islands, 290-
294; Carer, 620) also revealed the needs of the respondents.
Also, the questionnaire could not indicate the rating of needs on co-residence with the
children for separate housing in the same district but focus group data revealed different
and various views on this item. On one hand, there was an average mean with high standard
deviation (3.59±1.47) on Item 52, which concerns rental and safe living. On the other hand,
respondents in the focus groups reflected that high rental prices and a lack of choice in the
private market prohibited the opportunity of co-residence with children for separate housing in
the same district, as children would be unable to contribute money or support (Service Provider,
251-259, 262; 16-59 Resident, 417-418). In details, respondents of private housing owners and
Public Housing Unit (PHU) tenants agreed on this item, but there is a difference on the desire
level to meet those expectations.
Page 27
The statistical data and comments in the focus groups provided an understanding on how the
residential types effected the ratings with high differentiation, especially in the “Housing”
domain. There was a significant difference between residential types as determined by the
ANOVA (F(4) = 5.96, p < 0.001). A Scheffe post-hoc test indicated that the overall mean among
the “ownership of private permanent housing” group (3.70±0.69) was significantly lower than
the “public rental housing” group (3.99±0.75, p = 0.002). And the factors which created the
great variation can be found in the following comments from the focus groups:
i) The great difference in rent
Interviewee E:(私樓)管理費都貴過你(公屋)租啊!(The management fees (of
private housing) is more expensive than the rent of public housing.)
Interviewee H: 哇!你嗰啲管理費,住呢到公屋都夠啦!(Wah! The management fees
of your flat (private housing) are high enough to rent a public housing here (Tung Chung).)
(Carer, 525, 527)
ii) The barrier-free facilities were well-prepared in public housing estate but insufficient
in private housing, especially in the village houses.
Interviewee C:係呀,無𨋢㗎。(Yes, there is no lift here.)
Interviewee G:屋邨咪有囉!(The lift has been installed in public estates.)
(60+ Islands, 283-284)
iii) The maintenance liability falls on the shoulders of owners, which leads to feeling
unsafe and worried, but is free for elderly tenants who live in public housing units (PHU).
Interviewee J:…咁呢我裝修咗間屋。度門就換咗,就係有嗰啲防火嘅。但係呢政
府呢又話唔合格,咁你叫我幾十歲邊度搵錢整,係咪呀?咁宜家就咩囉,睇下佢點
先囉。無辦法㗎。(I renovated my house. The door was changed to a fire protection design,
but the government did not pass it. I am very old. How could I have so much money to
amend it again? Just wait and see, I can do nothing about it.)
Interviewee J:係呀係呀,呀婆邊有錢得㗎。咁就整咗度門又話唔合格,又話唔岩
規矩又要整過咁。(Yes, yes. I am just an old lady and don’t have so much money. I
renovated the door, but you (the government) don’t pass it (the fire safety) and said the
door is not fit for the rules that need to be revised again.)
(60+ Islands, 299, 304)
Based on living location and residents, inhabitants have different safety concerns, financial
burdens, living quality, living environments, and levels of overall satisfaction towards their
living community. In effect, there should be different future plans for different areas in the
District. Additionally, there should be further discussion on how to improve living situations
Page 28
and create an age-friendly environment in each of these areas, based on the characteristics of
the different communities.
High Standard Deviation Shows the Uniqueness among Communities in Islands District
It is important to pay attention to the standard deviation of all 53 questionnaire items. All
standard deviations were over 1 (Appendix 1), which was relatively high. It is apparent that
there are significant gaps when comparing the rural area of Tai O on Lantau Island, the traffic
free hilly islands of Cheung Chau and Lamma Island, and the modern, more progressive areas
of Tung Chung, regarded as a highway connected town located near the international airport.
To consider the age-friendliness in the District, it is quite different from community to the
community, such as Item 19, which concerns the preferred means of alternative transportation
(3.03±1.49). Islanders preferred a small bus for local transportation (60+ Islands, 104), but
residents in Tung Chung new town preferred mass transportation systems, such as the MTR, to
reach Yat Tung (16-59 Resident, 127). Item 12, which concerns the affordable and identical
price of transportation, recorded the highest standard deviation among all questionnaire items.
It is obvious that the ferry fare is much more expensive than the MTR or bus, especially if the
elderly are not aged 65 or over and, therefore, are not eligible for the senior fare discount (60+
Islands, 200-203). In addition to the domain of “Transportation”, the domain of “Community
Support and Health Services” also recorded scattered ratings (3.13±1.51) on item 53, which
concerns the provision of cemetery. After conducting a paired-sample t-test, there was a
significant difference between the mean recorded for indigenous inhabitants (Lantau and
Outlying Islands, N=292) and new town residents (Tung Chung, Yat Tung and Discovery Bay,
N=208). Referring to Table 2.8, the mean score among residents in new town (2.50±1.24) was
significantly lower than that for inhabitants’ in areas such as Lantau and outlying Islands
(3.58±1.54, p < 0.001). Since the natives from the District are able to enjoy burial rights in the
“Permitted Burial Grounds”, they do not need to worry about finding a grave. However, for
those who live in the new town, they need to compete for their graves among the limited
number of available graves and cremation column space in the District. These differences must
be taken into account when planning for the future of age-friendly communities.
Page 29
Item 53 N Mean SD
P value
(ANOVA) Type of Residents
Indigenous inhabitants Area (Lantau
and Outlying Islands) 292 3.58 1.54
p < 0.001 Residents in New town (Tung Chung,
Yat Tung and Discovery Bay) 208 2.50 1.24
Table 2.8 Comparison among new town residents and indigenous inhabitants on item 53 by
One-Way ANOVA statistical test
Other Highlights
For example, Item 7, special counter services in shops, in the domain of “Outdoor Spaces and
Buildings”, was particularly low in rating (2.96±1.35). The irony is that some retail business
transaction points, such as banking services, are not fully established in the District and,
therefore, need further improvement.
Page 30
2.4.4 Appreciation from Islands Residents
Interviewed elderly from the District were satisfied with the spacious outdoor spaces in both
Tung Chung new town and rural areas. Clean air was appreciated by the residents in rural areas
(60+ Tung Chung, 606; 60+ Islands, 108, 110).
Many respondents in the focus groups favoured the Government Public Transport Fare
Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities for the elderly over
65. It allows the elderly to buy grocery items and fresh food from wet market in other districts
in an affordable way (Carer, 182; 60+ Tung Chung, 548).
Housing in Tung Chung new town was believed to be accessible to services in Islands and
different parts of Hong Kong. At the same time, housing in rural areas were considered
spacious and provided a comfortable living environment for residents (60+ Tung Chung, 614).
The opening of North Lantau Hospital was highly appreciated by residents. The waiting time
for receiving health support services was greatly reduced. The elderly priority policy for the
out-patient service in North Lantau Hospital was appreciated by the elderly in Tung Chung
(60+ Tung Chung, 696).
Islands District has a comprehensive neighbourhood bond, especially in rural areas, and has a
great sense of respect and social inclusion among community members. In addition, a close
neighbourhood network allows for face-to-face communication. Therefore, elderly can be
notified about relevant community messages even if they cannot read. As a result of the trust
within the community, the elderly are also able to engage in social participation by voicing
their opinions. Elderly centres and community service providers in Tung Chung new town have
effectively serviced as created a platform for facilitating communication and social
participation (60+ Tung Chung, 843, 856-859; Service Provider, 714; Carer, 128, 154).
Residents in Tung Chung were provided plenty of job opportunities at the airport when the
economic activities in rural areas were targeted at tourist development. Since the offices of
district council members of the District are located near the residential area in Tung Chung, it
is easy to gather feedback and opinions from residents (Carer, 104-105, 109; Carer, 242, 245,
247, 249, 251, 253; 60+ Tung Chung, 306, 281, 283).
Page 31
2.4.5 Discussions and Suggestions
Table 2.9 to Table 2.16 show the suggestions that were proposed once combining the results of
the quantitative and qualitative findings with the field observations by ambassadors and
professional support teams. The priority of each suggestion is based on the opinion of
respondents and the actuality that the suggestion could be presently implemented.
1. Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Inadequate lighting in some rural
areas
Install more street lights (e.g. in Cheung Chau
Sai Tai, Mui Wo, Ma Wan Chung Village)
Inadequate signs for directions
in the parks and on the streets
Install direction signs accordingly (e.g. Tat
Tung Road Park and Streets in Tai O)
Footpaths are narrowed as they
are illegally blocked by shops
and restaurants with their
properties.
Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. Cheung Chau,
Yat Tung Market)
Unpleasant environment
Too many mosquitos (Yat
Tung)
Dog excreta on the street (Yat
Tung)
Enhance public education on being a
responsible pet owner.
Set up dog excreta collection bins or dog latrines
Strengthen pest control against mosquitos
Develop Pets Park in Yat Tung Estate
Inadequate/ inaccessible elderly
fitness stations (Tai O, Tung
Chung)
Install elderly fitness stations in the existing
sheltered buffer zones
Install shelters for the existing elderly fitness
stations
Redesign bus routes and set up bus stops or
footbridges to connect Yat Tung Estate and Man
Tung Road Park
Road maintenance Widen footpaths for handling the flows on
holidays (e.g. Lamma Island)
Renovate the damaged roads (e.g. Tai O)
Inadequate barrier-free facilities Construct a footbridge to link Sun Ki Street and
Po Chu Tam in Tai O
Audit the stairs’ conditions in rural areas,
especially in Luk Wu and Keung Shan, and
install suitable slopes for wheelchair users
Page 32
Goods and services are
expensive with limited choices
(Tung Chung)
Establish new Municipal Service Building and
wet markets
Inadequate banking services
(Whole Islands District)
Install Mobile Banking Vehicles or automated
teller machines
Launch special counters for elderly in public
services, especially in popular tourist business
areas
Table 2.9 Discussions and suggestions on “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings”
Page 33
2. Transportation
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Both drivers and passengers do
not care much about elderly
safety
Enhance public education on transportation in
elderly safety (Tung Chung)
Inadequate age-friendly
transportation within sub-
communities
Provide bus services for the elderly within sub-
community (e.g. Cheung Chau)
Provide services for people in need, such as
people with walking disability and their carers, to
borrow wheelchairs temporarily
Allow tricycle with passenger seat for travelling
within sub-community
Over-crowded buses or some
models of buses do not facilitate
wheelchair users to get on the
bus. (e.g. Route 11 bus between
Tung Chung and Tai O)
Extend the existing MTR Tung Chung Line to
Yat Tung Estate
Include new model of single-decker bus which
can accommodate wheelchair users
Evaluate the existing Yat Tung bus terminal and
Citygate bus terminal to ensure the safety of
pedestrians and passengers
Inadequate scheduled bus
services create long queues.
(No. 38 bus between Tung
Chung and Yat Tung, No. 11 in
Holiday)
Incomplete transportation
network in the District
Service providers cannot
access to some rural areas
Residents cannot get social
and community support due to
the limited transportation
services
Provide transportation services to the social
service providers, especially to travel in the
restricted traffic zones (e.g. Sha Lo Wan and Pak
Mong)
Evaluate the transportation system on Lantau
Island
Improve rural bus services and provide relevant
information to the public
Table 2.10 Discussions and suggestions on “Transportation”
Page 34
3. Housing
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Elderly worry about the
maintenance of their housing
Make good use of existing maintenance services
for the elderly and have more promotions among
the elderly
Unpleasant environment in
public housing estates
Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. spitting, illegal
Mah Jong business, smoking, unloading trashes
at illegal spots) (Yat Tung)
Enhance public education
Youth gather at night (Yat
Tung) and make noise
Suggest providing more places for teenagers to
have entertainment in the District (especially for
mid-night gatherings)
Inadequate elderly housing
policy
(including moving to suitable
housing upon frail and living
with children for separate
housing in the same district to
receive family support)
Suggest imposing policy for the elderly to move
to more convenient accommodation among
public housing estates
Establish Elderly Persons’ Flats
Elderly and their children
cannot afford the rental of
private housing
Increase the supply of public housing
Table 2.11 Discussions and suggestions on “Housing”
Page 35
4. Community Support and Health Services
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Insufficient supports for carers Increase mental and technical supports for carers
Adjust the opening hour of elderly centres
More services for supporting carers
Carry out more promotion to carers.
Inadequate graves and
cremation column spaces
Increase the supply of graves and cremation
column spaces
Insufficient residential care
services for the elderly
Increase the supply of residential care services
Turn Yat Tung Estate Car Park into activity
centres for the elderly and young people, and
provide residential care services
Inadequate and inaccessible
supports for ageing in place
Increase the quota of day-care services and
establish more day care centres
Improve the transportation coverage on Lantau
Island for service providers to provide services in
remote areas
Incomprehensive service in
North Lantau Hospital
The existing services cannot
meet the growing demand from
Tung Chung new town.
Evaluate the existing services of North Lantau
Hospital
Insufficient supports on
transportation for reaching
medical services
Advocate the concept of “medical and social
integration” to provide health care services in the
community
Improve the transportation service between Tung
Chung and Princess Margaret Hospital
Telephone appointment service
is too complicated and not user-
friendly
Improve the service made based on the best
interest of patients
Give notification at the beginning once the quota
is full and allow clients to provide information
for staff to take follow-up actions
Strengthen the neighbourhood mutual help
network to provide safety and emergency care to
the elderly
Table 2.12 Discussions and suggestions on “Community Support and Health Services”
Page 36
5. Communication and Information
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Incomplete mobile network
coverage
Influence the accessibility of
social services for the elderly
Evaluate the existing mobile network coverage
on Lantau Island and follow up with suitable
improvements (e.g. Pak Mong)
Low literacy rate in rural area
Difficult for the elderly to
receive messages through
written forms
Make good use of face-to-face communication
Teach the elderly to use instant messaging tools
like WhatsApp recording
Set up clansmen groups for effective
communication
Set up weekly gathering with news reading or
other activities for effective message spreading
Set up audible devices in government buildings
for the elderly to receive information about the
society
Table 2.13 Discussions and suggestions on “Communication and Information”
Page 37
6. Social Participation
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Women are more active in
social participation than men.
Arrange more activities for men, like leisure
activities and open-ended discussion
Strong neighbourhood network Keep the good practice
Suggest service providers to have further
promotion or activities to strengthen
neighbourhood support network
Inadequate barrier-free
facilities in activity venues
Improve the barrier-free facilities in washrooms
and activity rooms in elderly centres
Residents from different
backgrounds (e.g. smokers,
natives, new arrivals, people
from ethnic minorities and
tourists) cannot share the
limited space in respectful
ways.
Enhance public education
Insufficient space and quotas
for the elderly activities
Set up elderly centres and elderly gathering
spots on outlying islands (e.g. Lamma Island)
Turn Yat Tung Estate Car Park into social
centres for elderly and teenagers
Table 2.14 Discussions and suggestions on “Social Participation”
Page 38
7. Respect and Social Inclusion
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Elderly from the focus groups
mentioned that new arrivals and
teenagers do not respect the
elderly.
Enhance intergenerational activities, especially
in civic education, communication and
maintaining pleasant environment in the
society, which allow people of different ages to
understand one another
Eliminate discrimination through strengthening
neighbourhood network and mutual
understanding
Carry out more age-friendly city ambassador
trainings for promoting respect and social
inclusion
Land use conflicts between
residents and tourists
Collect residents’ views while designing the
land use
Elderly from the focus groups
mentioned that elderly’s images
are negatively shown on public
media
Evaluate the current image of the elderly in
various promotional products
Carry out more public education about the
positive image of the elderly
Table 2.15 Discussions and suggestions on “Respect and Social Inclusion”
Page 39
8. Civic Participation and Employment
Discussions Suggestions Priority
Women have more comments
than men generally. However,
as the representatives in rural
areas are men, women are less
likely to voice out their
opinions.
Gather elderly’s comments through various
means and voice out their comments
Set livelihood issue as the first priority when
collecting opinions
Have public education on civic participation
and the importance of elderly’s contribution to
the society
Build up trust with the residents before inviting
them to express their opinions in formal means
Men in new town do not like to
express their opinions in formal
channels, but prefer to discuss
or express their opinions to the
trusted one
Insufficient appropriate job
opportunities for the elderly
Create more part time job opportunities (e.g.
being an art tutor) or set up policy to encourage
employers to hire the elderly
Suggest providing short-term regular activities
and hiring the elderly as instructor
Social atmosphere, government
policy and employment service
are unfavourable for elderly
employment.
Evaluate/ Review the existing laws to protect
elderly employment
Improve the existing consultation service on
employment
Table 2.16 Discussions and suggestions on “Civic Participation and Employment”
Page 40
2.5 Limitations
It is not easy to adapt a global guide to make a questionnaire for local survey. Some of the
concepts are not applicable because of differences in local context. The 53 items questionnaire
used in this research was prepared based on the WHO document Checklist of Essential Features
of Age-friendly Cities3, which is a guide intended for 33 cities in 22 countries. One of the
questions asked if “Drivers stop at designated stops beside the curb to facilitate boarding and
wait for passengers to be seated before driving off.” (Q18 in our questionnaire used in Hong
Kong). This question might be appropriate in urban area, but it is difficult for residents in
outlying islands in Hong Kong, like Cheung Chau and Lamma Island, to comprehend as there
is no public regular motor transport existing there. Trained interviewers from our research team
tried their best to explain this item and describe the importance of road safety for pedestrians
in order to decrease misunderstanding. Meanwhile, it is likely that the elderly from these
islands could have different references from those living in the modern town of Tung Chung
on Lantau Island.
Furthermore, quite a number of questionnaire items include more than one key point, e.g.
“Outdoor safety is promoted by good street lighting, police patrols and community education”
(Q5 in our questionnaire). In this question, three key concepts were asked in one item and one
choice from the Likert scale of 6 points was expected. Single concept items are, therefore,
preferred for easier responses and more specific research data.
Methodologically, our research team employed a convenience sampling strategy and
communicated with our partner agents (welfare service providers, elderly centres etc.) to reach
target subjects, which may have created bias in the data. Samples, therefore, may be skewed
and perhaps only elderly who are more active, having higher level of social participation, and
felt the social network of the community age-friendly were included in the study; they may be
more knowledgeable about the operation of the community at work. It is, thus, likely that our
samples have an underrepresentation of the elderly who behaved more often as isolated
singletons. Further studies through outreach social workers are needed to identify the needs
and expectations of less active and more isolated elderly.
Despite the intensive analysis, we discovered that the need for financial security was not
included in the questionnaire. We addressed some of the worries on repairing an old private
premise that elderly singleton expressed under the domain of Housing, but perhaps the problem
is bigger than that and is, thus, worth investigating further in future.
3 www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf, WHO, 2013.
Page 41
3. Conclusion
With the joint effort of the research team on the literature review, questionnaire collections,
focus group interviews, along with the field observations by trained ambassadors, a
comprehensive picture of the prospect of building an age-friendly city in Islands District was
sketched. Areas for improvements were proposed by using a bottom-up approach. It is
encouraging to see that the District is on the right track towards an age-friendly community.
Also, it is important to make note of the high ratings on the domains of Social Participation.
We are grateful to all participants, especially the elderly, with their great contribution and
reflections, and useful data in regards to the current status of age-friendliness in the District.
Moreover, their recommendations can serve as reference for how to plan for the future and
create an age-friendly environment. With the support of the elderly, who are highly valuable
resources, we are able to spread the idea and development of an age-friendly city in the District.
Page 42
4. Acknowledgement
Initiated and funded by:
The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust
Report Authors and Contributors from Lingnan University
Name Position and Organization
Prof. CHAN Cheung-ming, Alfred
(till 31 March, 2016)
Director, Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing Studies &
Director, Office of Service-Learning
Dr. MA Hok-ka, Carol Research Fellow, Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing
Studies & Associate Director, Office of Service-
Learning
Dr. TSE Pak-hoi, Isaac Research Scholar, Office of Service-Learning
Ms. LEUNG Wing-yee, Nans Senior Project Officer, Office of Service-Learning
Ms. AU Wing-lan Project Officer, Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing
Studies
Ms. NGAI Hiu-lam, Helen Project Coordinator, Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing
Studies
Ms. KWAN Chung-man, May Graduate Trainee, Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing
Studies
Table 4.1 Report authors and contributors from Lingnan University
Supporting Organizations (in alphabetical order)
Organization
Cheung Chau Chiu Chow Association
Everlasting Light Mission
Hai Kee Stone Factory
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Tung Chung Integrated Services
LingnanU Elder Academy
NAAC Tung Chung Integrated Service
OIWA (Headquarter and Lamma Island)
Pok Oi Hospital Chan Shi Sau Memorial Social Service Centre
Tung Chung Healthy and Safe City
YWCA Tai O Community Work Office
Table 4.2 Supporting organizations
Page 43
Project Helpers (in alphabetical order)
Ms. CHAN Pui-li
Ms. CHEUNG Yuk-lin
Ms. CHUNG Wing-yan
Mr. FONG Pak-kun
Ms. FUNG Suet-ling, Sally
Mr. FUNG Wai-him
Ms. HO Ka-yan, Emily
Ms. KAI Chun-hing
Ms. LAM Hiu-yi
Mr. LAM Ka-kuen, Andy
Mr. LAM Cheuk-man
Mr. LEUNG Kwok-ping
Ms. LI Man-ching
Ms. LI Sheung-yu
Ms. LI Yin-wa
Ms. LOK Wing-ki
Ms. MA Hiu-ching
Ms. MAK Mei-mui, Margarat
Ms. MAN Sin-yan
Ms. NG Siu-luen
Mr. SHUM Man-chuen, Tony
Mr. POON Chun-kuen
Ms. TANG Wai-yan
Ms. TONG Kit-har
Mr. TONG Ngok-yeung, Michael
Mr. TSANG Chung-lim, Clement
Ms. TSOI To-yan
Mr. WAN Ka-ming
Mr. WONG Chi-yin
Ms. WONG Hiu-shan
Ms. WONG Man-yiu
Ms. WONG Po-yiu
Mr. WU Jacky Chun-kit
Ms. YIP CHENG Yin-wah, Alice
Ms. YIP Wai-oi, Grace
Ms. YOUNG Po-yee
Ms. YU Wing-man, Diana
Table 4.3 Project helpers
Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors – Tai O Team
(in alphabetical order and transliterated by Chinese Names)
Mr. CHANG Kam
Mr. CHENG Kin-hung
Ms. CHEUNG For-mui
Ms. CHEUNG Kam-tai
Ms. FUNG Tim-mui
Ms. KWAN Ho
Ms. LEUNG Cho-ho
Ms. LO Kiu
Ms. LO Pui-yung
Ms. WAN For-mui
Ms. WONG Ah-kiu
Table 4.4 Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors – Tai O team
Page 44
Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors –Tung Chung Team
(in alphabetical order and transliterated by Chinese Names)
Ms. CHAN Chun
Ms. CHAN Hang
Ms. CHAN Yun-lin
Mr. CHOW Kwai-yan
Ms. CHU Nga-fong
Mr. CHU Shu-yan
Ms. CHU Yiu-hay
Ms. CHUNG Wai-ching
Ms. CHUNG Woon-chun
Ms. FU Shuzhi
Mr. HO Chi-kun
Ms. HO Chung-oi
Ms. HO Ging-lai
Ms. HO Mei-lai
Ms. HO Pau-lin
Ms. HUNG Ching-fa
Ms. IP Un-ying
Ms. IU Kam-oi
Ms. KAM King-ling
Ms. KAM Yam-yu
Ms. KWAN Pui-ying
Ms. KWOK Chuen-yao
Mr. LAM Fun-sun
Mr. LAM Wing-san
Ms. LAU Chun-wing
Ms. LEE Kwong-ying
Table 4.5 Islands Age-friendly City Project Ambassadors –Tung Chung team
Ms. LI Man-sze
Mr. POON Shui-tong
Ms. SIU Sung-po
Mr. SZE Kwok-hin
Mr. TAM Kwok-leung
Ms. TANG Chit-hang, Agnes
Ms. TONG Yik-mui
Ms. TSANG Ying-tong
Ms. TSE Wai-chun
Ms. TSUI Miu-chun
Ms. WONG Kam-lin
Mr. WONG Kei-tat
Ms. WONG Mui-fong
Ms. WONG Ngan-heung
Ms. WONG Sin-man
Ms. WONG-siu
Ms. WONG Yuk-fun
Ms. WOO Siu-Chun
Ms. YAU Yuet-ying
Ms. YEUNG Yin-ching
Mr. YIP Kai-ming
Ms. YIP Kwai-chun
Ms. YIP Lai-ying, Mary
Ms. YUEN Pui-yan
Mr. ZHONG Guole
Page 45
5. References
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (2015). Country Parks and Special
Areas Distribution Map. Retrieved from
http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/country/cou_vis/cou_vis_cou/files/KeyPlan_1C
P_SA.jpg
Audience Building Office – Leisure and Cultural Services Department (2015). “Community
Oral History Theatre Project – Islands District (Tai O)”. Retrieved from
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/CulturalService/ab/en/OH_details_taio.php
Census and Statistics Department (2015a). Population and household statistics analysed by
district council district: 2014. Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11303012014AN14B0100.pdf
Census and Statistics Department (2015c). Hong Kong population projections 2015-2064.
Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B1120015062015XXXXB0100.pdf
Census and Statistics Department (2015c). Hong Kong annual digest of statistics: 2015
edition. Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B10100032015AN15B0100.pdf
Civil Engineering and Development Department (2014). Tung Chung New Town. Retrieved
from http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/achievements/regional/regi_tungchung.html
Elder Academy (2012). Elder academies at primary and secondary schools > New
Territories. Retrieved from http://www.elderacademy.org.hk/en/school/nt.html
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (2014). Public toilets in Islands. Retrieved
from http://www.fehd.gov.hk/english/map/toilet/Is.php
Government Flying Service (2015). Service & operation. Retrieved from
http://www.gfs.gov.hk/eng/service.htm
GovHK (2015). GovWiFi Locator and Premises List > Locations. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.hk/en/theme/wifi/location/result.htm?id=16&type=all&x=49&
y=8
Page 46
Highways Department (2015). Retrofitting of barrier-free access facilities. Retrieved 2
September, 2015, from
http://www.hyd.gov.hk/barrierfree/eng/images/list_of_locations.pdf
Hong Kong Housing Authority (2015). 2015/16年度房屋署離島區屋邨管理工作大綱.
Retrieved 30 October, 2015 from
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2012_2015/sc/dc_meetings_doc/
448/IS_2015_53_TC.pdf
Information Services Department (2015). New Towns, New Development Areas and Urban
Developments. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/towns%26urban_develop
ments.pdf
Planning Department (2014). 2014-2023 Projections of Population Distribution. Hong Kong:
Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/tables/Locked_WGPD_
Report_2014-2023.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2008). Home Environment Improvement Scheme for the Elderly.
Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/HEISE_chinese%28Sep08%29.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2015a). Number of Homes Providing Residential Care Services
for Elders (By district) 31.12.2015. Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/ERCS/15%20Overview%20item%28c%29
english%2031-12-2015.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2015b). List of Subvented, Self-financing and Contract
Residential Care Homes for the Elderly Providing Subsidised Places for
Elders (As at 31.12.2015). Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/ERCS/6List%20of%20RCH%20item%28a
%29%2031-12-2015.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2015c). List of Residential Care Homes for the Elderly Providing
Non-subsidised Places for Elders (As at 31.12.2015). Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/ERCS/5List%20of%20RCH%20item%28b
%29%2031-12-2015.pdf
Page 47
Social Welfare Department (2015d). Service Area of Elderly Centres in Central Western,
South and Islands Districts. Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/Service%20boundary%20of%20Elderly%
20Centre_CWSI_2.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2015e). Services for the Elderly. Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_elderly/
Social Welfare Department (2015f). 離島區地區指標及人口特徵摘要. Hong Kong: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/2015Social%20Indicators-CWSI-
I.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2016a). 1-year Project (2015-2016). Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/OEP_1-year%20Project%282015-
2016%29.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2016b). 2-year Project (2014-2016). Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/OEP_2-year%20Project%202014-2016.pdf
Social Welfare Department (2016c). 2014-2015 School Promotion Project. Retrieved from
http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/elderly/2014-
2015%20School%20Promotion%20Project_School%20Project%20List.pdf
Survey and Mapping Office / Lands Department (2014). Area by District Council. Retrieved
28 January 2016, from
http://www.landsd.gov.hk/mapping/en/publications/district.htm
Transport and Housing Bureau (2014). Railway Development Strategy 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.thb.gov.hk/tc/psp/publications/transport/publications/rds2014.pdf
Transport Department (2015). Cycling facilities > major cycle tracks and parking sites >
Tung Chung. Retrieved from http://www.td.gov.hk/mini_site/cic/en/cycling-
infrastructure/cycle-tracks-and-parkings/tung-chung.html
Tsuen Wan District Council, Yan Chai Hospital Chan Feng Men Ling Integrated Community
Development Centre and Lingnan University (2014). Tsuen Wan District Age-
Friendly City Initiative. Hong Kong: Tsuen Wan District Council.
Page 48
World Health Organization (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
World Health Organisation (2007). Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Retrieved from World
Health Organization website:
http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_En
glish.pdf
Page 49
6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Results from Islands District
Domain Mean Standard
Deviation
Outdoor Spaces and Buildings 3.80 0.88
Transportation 3.89 0.85
Housing 3.46 1.11
Social Participation 4.14 0.88
Respect and Social Inclusion 4.05 0.86
Civic Participation and Employment 3.77 0.99
Communication and Information 3.99 0.83
Community Support and Health Services 3.69 0.93
Overall mean score of 8 domains 3.85 0.73
Table 6.1 Mean score of perceived age-friendliness on eight domains
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q1 公共地方乾淨同舒適。 4.06 1.23
Q2 戶外座位同綠化空間充足,而且保養得妥善同安全。 4.17 1.25
Q3 司機喺路口同行人過路處俾行人行先。 3.75 1.35
Q4 單車徑同行人路分開。 3.44 1.57
Q5 街道有充足嘅照明,而且有警察巡邏,令戶外地方安
全。 4.04 1.29
Q6 商業服務(好似購物中心、超巿、銀行)嘅地點集中同
方便使用。 4.29 1.26
Q7 有安排特別客戶服務俾有需要人士,例如長者專用櫃
枱。 2.96 1.35
Q8 建築物內外都有清晰嘅指示、足夠嘅座位、無障礙升降
機、斜路、扶手同樓梯、同埋防滑地板。 3.74 1.47
Q9 室外和室內地方嘅公共洗手間數量充足、乾淨同埋保養
得妥善,俾唔同行動能力嘅人士使用。 3.76 1.34
Table 6.2 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings”
Page 50
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q10 路面交通有秩序。 3.89 1.30
Q11 交通網絡良好,透過公共交通可以去到市內所有地區
同埋服務地點。 4.19 1.21
Q12 公共交通嘅費用係可以負擔嘅,而且價錢清晰。無論
喺惡劣天氣、繁忙時間或假日,收費都係一致嘅。 3.99 1.59
Q13 喺所有時間,包括喺夜晚、週末和假日,公共交通服
務都係可靠同埋班次頻密。 4.18 1.29
Q14 公共交通服務嘅路線同班次資料完整,又列出可以俾
傷殘人士使用嘅班次。 3.55 1.49
Q15 公共交通工具嘅車廂乾淨、保養良好、容易上落、唔
迫、又有優先使用座位。而乘客亦會讓呢啲位俾有需要人
士。
4.23 1.24
Q16 有專為殘疾人士而設嘅交通服務。 3.40 1.46
Q17 車站嘅位置方便、容易到達、安全、乾淨、光線充
足、有清晰嘅標誌,仲有蓋,同埋有充足嘅座位。 4.14 1.34
Q18 司機會喺指定嘅車站同緊貼住行人路停車,方便乘客
上落,又會等埋乘客坐低先開車。 4.18 1.27
Q19 喺公共交通唔夠嘅地方有其他接載服務。 3.03 1.49
Q20 的士可以擺放輪椅同助行器,費用負擔得起。司機有
禮貌,並且樂於助人。 3.67 1.30
Q21 馬路保養妥善,照明充足。 4.17 1.18
Table 6.3 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Transportation”
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q22 房屋嘅數量足夠、價錢可負擔,而且地點安全,又近
其他社區服務同地方。 3.59 1.47
Q23 住所嘅所有房間同通道都有足夠嘅室內空間同平地可
以自由活動。 3.63 1.37
Q24 有可負擔嘅家居改裝選擇同物料供應,而且供應商了
解長者嘅需要。 3.36 1.43
Q25 區內有充足同可負擔嘅房屋提供俾體弱同殘疾嘅長
者,亦有適合佢地嘅服務。 3.28 1.40
Table 6.4 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Housing”
Page 51
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q26 活動可以俾一個人或者同朋友一齊參加。 4.51 1.02
Q27 活動同參觀景點嘅費用都可以負擔,亦都冇隱藏或附
加嘅收費。 4.35 1.04
Q28 有完善咁提供有關活動嘅資料,包括無障礙設施同埋
交通選擇。 4.02 1.19
Q29 提供多元化嘅活動去吸引唔同喜好嘅長者參與。 4.13 1.24
Q30 喺區內唔同場地 (好似文娛中心、學校、圖書館、社
區中心同公園)內,舉行可以俾長者參與嘅聚會。 3.97 1.39
Q31 對少接觸外界嘅人士提供可靠嘅外展支援服務。 3.84 1.39
Table 6.5 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Social Participation”
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q32 各種服務會定期諮詢長者,為求服務得佢地更好。 3.73 1.33
Q33 提供唔同服務同產品,去滿足唔同人士嘅需求同喜
好。 3.65 1.31
Q34 服務人員有禮貌,樂於助人。 4.44 1.03
Q35 學校提供機會去學習有關長者同埋年老嘅知識,並有
機會俾長者參與學校活動。 3.70 1.35
Q36 社會認同長者喺過去同埋目前所作出嘅貢獻。 4.53 1.09
Q37 傳媒對長者嘅描述正面同埋冇成見。 4.25 1.01
Table 6.6 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Respect and Social Inclusion”
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q38 長者有彈性嘅義務工作選擇,而且得到訓練、表揚、
指導同埋補償開支。 3.85 1.32
Q39 長者員工嘅特質得到廣泛推崇。 3.83 1.21
Q40 提倡各種具彈性並有合理報酬嘅工作機會俾長者。 3.36 1.35
Q41 禁止喺僱用、留用、晉升同培訓僱員呢幾方面年齡歧
視。 4.05 1.30
Table 6.7 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Civic Participation and
Employment”
Page 52
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q42 資訊發佈嘅方式簡單有效,唔同年齡嘅人士都接收
到。 4.28 1.07
Q43 定期提供長者有興趣嘅訊息同廣播。 3.93 1.23
Q44 少接觸外界嘅人士可以喺佢地信任嘅人士身上,得到
同佢本人有關嘅資訊。 3.97 1.15
Q45 電子設備,好似手提電話、收音機、電視機、銀行自
動櫃員機同自動售票機嘅掣夠大,同埋上面嘅字體都夠
大。
4.04 1.19
Q46 電話應答系統嘅指示緩慢同清楚,又會話俾打去嘅人
聽點樣可以隨時重複內容。 3.67 1.27
Q47 係公眾場所,好似政府辦事處、社區中心同圖書館,
已廣泛設有平嘅或者係免費嘅電腦同上網服務俾人使用。 4.04 1.29
Table 6.8 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Communication and
Information”
Question Mean Std.
Deviation
Q48 醫療同社區支援服務足夠。 3.86 1.33
Q49 有提供家居護理服務,包括健康丶個人照顧同家務。 3.76 1.34
Q50 院舍服務設施同長者的居所都鄰近其他社區服務同地
方。
3.80 1.28
Q51 市民唔會因為經濟困難,而得唔到醫療同社區嘅支援
服務。
4.16 1.16
Q52 社區應變計劃(好似走火警)有考慮到長者嘅能力同
限制。
3.46 1.40
Q53 墓地(包括土葬同骨灰龕)嘅數量足夠同埋容易獲
得。
3.13 1.51
Table 6.9 Item mean score of perceived age-friendliness on “Community Support and Health
Services”
Page 53
Appendix 2: Sample Profile for Islands District: Data Tables
Gender Frequency Percent (%)
Male 121 24.2
Female 379 75.8
Total 500 100.0
Table 6.10 Distribution of participants by gender
Age groups Frequency Percent (%)
16-49 74 14.8
50-64 110 22.0
65-79 195 39.0
80 or above 121 24.2
Total 500 100.0
Table 6.11 Distribution of participants by age group
Residing area Frequency Percent (%)
Lantau 50 10.0
Yat Tung 132 26.4
Tung Chung 72 14.4
Discovery Bay 4 0.8
Peng Chau & Hei Ling Chau 12 2.4
Lamma and Po Toi 60 12.0
Cheung Chau 122 24.4
Tai O 48 9.6
Total 500 100.0
Table 6.12 Distribution of participants by residential area
Education level Frequency Percent (%)
Primary or below 288 57.6
Secondary Education 151 30.2
Post-secondary Education 60 12.0
Total 499 99.8
Missing 1 0.2
Table 6.13 Distribution of participants by education level
Page 54
Marital status Frequency Percent (%)
Never married 58 11.6
Now married 309 61.8
Widowed 110 22.0
Divorced/Separated 22 4.4
Total 499 99.8
Missing 1 0.2
Table 6.14 Distribution of participants by marital status
Living arrangement Frequency Percent (%)
Living with spouse 152 30.4
Living with children 93 18.6
Living with spouse and children 104 20.8
Living alone 98 19.6
Other 51 10.2
Total 498 99.6
Missing 2 0.4
Table 6.15 Distribution of participants by living arrangement
Type of Housing Frequency Percent (%)
Public Rental Housing 189 37.8
Subsidised sale flats 61 12.2
Rental private permanent housing 23 4.6
Ownership of private permanent housing 200 40.0
Temporary housing 21 4.2
Total 494 98.8
Missing 6 1.2
Table 6.16 Distribution of participants by housing
Page 55
Monthly income Frequency Percent (%)
less than $2,000 91 18.2
$2,000 - $3,999 165 33.0
$4,000 - $5,999 91 18.2
$6,000 - $ 7,999 41 8.2
$8,000 - $9,999 23 4.6
$10,000 - $14,999 36 7.2
$15,000 - $19,999 25 5.0
$20,000 - $ 24,999 6 1.2
$25,000 - $29,999 6 1.2
$30,000 - $39,999 7 1.4
$40,000 - $ 59,999 5 1.0
more than $60,000 1 0.2
Total 497 99.4
Missing 3 0.6
Table 6.17 Distribution of participants by monthly income
Fulfilment of daily expenditure Frequency Percent (%)
Strongly not enough 16 3.2
Not enough 91 18.2
Merely enough 299 59.8
Enough 87 17.4
Very enough 6 1.2
Total 499 99.8
Missing 1 0.2
Table 6.18 Distribution of participants by fulfilment of daily expenditure
Self-ranked health status Frequency Percent (%)
Bad 29 5.8
Average 253 50.6
Good 135 27.0
Very Good 62 12.4
Excellent 21 4.2
Total 500 100.0
Table 6.19 Distribution of participants by self-ranked health status
Page 56
Participation in Elderly Centres Frequency Percent (%)
No 259 51.8
Yes 232 46.4
Total 491 98.2
Missing 9 1.8
Table 6.20 Distribution of participants by participation in elderly centres
Experience of taking care of older people Frequency Percent (%)
No 280 56.0
Yes 209 41.8
Total 489 97.8
Missing 11 2.2
Table 6.21 Distribution of participants by experience of taking care of older people
Employment status Frequency Percent (%)
Employed 90 18.0
Retired 280 56.0
Unemployed/home-makers/students/others 123 24.6
Total 493 98.6
Missing 7 1.4
Table 6.22 Distribution of participants by employment status
Chronic diseases Frequency Percent (%)
No 243 48.6
Yes 251 50.2
Total 494 98.8
Missing 6 1.2
Table 6.23 Distribution of participants by chronic diseases